prediction_market_scan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful traits: filter rules (skip/boost), output contents (ranked opportunities with Kelly sizing and filter status), and cost ($0.10 via x402 micropayment in USDC on Base). However, it omits auth requirements beyond payment, rate limits, and safety profile, so it is not fully comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then filter behavior, output format, and cost. Each sentence contributes useful information with no obvious waste. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-structured and appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It explains what is returned (ranked opportunities with Kelly sizing and filter status) and the cost model, which is important. It is largely complete for a scan tool, though usage context could be richer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the single 'markets' parameter and its nested fields. The description adds no param-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Scan and rank multiple prediction markets by tradeable edge.' It clearly defines the scope as batch scanning of multiple markets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like prediction_market_estimate or prediction_market_size, leaving that distinction to the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The name and description imply batch scanning, but the agent must infer that from context rather than being told.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.